the soul of man-第8节

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！



view　of　life　is　so　large；　so　varied；　so　imaginatively　true。　　There

are　tellers　of　stories　in　Russia　who　have　a　more　vivid　sense　of

what　pain　in　fiction　may　be。　　But　to　him　belongs　philosophy　in

fiction。　　His　people　not　merely　live；　but　they　live　in　thought。

One　can　see　them　from　myriad　points　of　view。　　They　are　suggestive。

There　is　soul　in　them　and　around　them。　　They　are　interpretative　and

symbolic。　　And　he　who　made　them；　those　wonderful　quickly…moving

figures；　made　them　for　his　own　pleasure；　and　has　never　asked　the

public　what　they　wanted；　has　never　cared　to　know　what　they　wanted；

has　never　allowed　the　public　to　dictate　to　him　or　influence　him　in

any　way　but　has　gone　on　intensifying　his　own　personality；　and

producing　his　own　individual　work。　　At　first　none　came　to　him。

That　did　not　matter。　　Then　the　few　came　to　him。　　That　did　not

change　him。　　The　many　have　come　now。　　He　is　still　the　same。　　He　is

an　incomparable　novelist。　　With　the　decorative　arts　it　is　not

different。　　The　public　clung　with　really　pathetic　tenacity　to　what

I　believe　were　the　direct　traditions　of　the　Great　Exhibition　of

international　vulgarity；　traditions　that　were　so　appalling　that　the

houses　in　which　people　lived　were　only　fit　for　blind　people　to　live

in。　　Beautiful　things　began　to　be　made；　beautiful　colours　came　from

the　dyer's　hand；　beautiful　patterns　from　the　artist's　brain；　and

the　use　of　beautiful　things　and　their　value　and　importance　were　set

forth。　　The　public　were　really　very　indignant。　　They　lost　their

temper。　　They　said　silly　things。　　No　one　minded。　　No　one　was　a　whit

the　worse。　　No　one　accepted　the　authority　of　public　opinion。　　And

now　it　is　almost　impossible　to　enter　any　modern　house　without

seeing　some　recognition　of　good　taste；　some　recognition　of　the

value　of　lovely　surroundings；　some　sign　of　appreciation　of　beauty。

In　fact；　people's　houses　are；　as　a　rule；　quite　charming　nowadays。

People　have　been　to　a　very　great　extent　civilised。　　It　is　only　fair

to　state；　however；　that　the　extraordinary　success　of　the　revolution

in　house…decoration　and　furniture　and　the　like　has　not　really　been

due　to　the　majority　of　the　public　developing　a　very　fine　taste　in

such　matters。　　It　has　been　chiefly　due　to　the　fact　that　the

craftsmen　of　things　so　appreciated　the　pleasure　of　making　what　was

beautiful；　and　woke　to　such　a　vivid　consciousness　of　the

hideousness　and　vulgarity　of　what　the　public　had　previously　wanted；

that　they　simply　starved　the　public　out。　　It　would　be　quite

impossible　at　the　present　moment　to　furnish　a　room　as　rooms　were

furnished　a　few　years　ago；　without　going　for　everything　to　an

auction　of　second…hand　furniture　from　some　third…rate　lodging…

house。　　The　things　are　no　longer　made。　　However　they　may　object　to

it；　people　must　nowadays　have　something　charming　in　their

surroundings。　　Fortunately　for　them；　their　assumption　of　authority

in　these　art…matters　came　to　entire　grief。



It　is　evident；　then；　that　all　authority　in　such　things　is　bad。

People　sometimes　inquire　what　form　of　government　is　most　suitable

for　an　artist　to　live　under。　　To　this　question　there　is　only　one

answer。　　The　form　of　government　that　is　most　suitable　to　the　artist

is　no　government　at　all。　　Authority　over　him　and　his　art　is

ridiculous。　　It　has　been　stated　that　under　despotisms　artists　have

produced　lovely　work。　　This　is　not　quite　so。　　Artists　have　visited

despots；　not　as　subjects　to　be　tyrannised　over；　but　as　wandering

wonder…makers；　as　fascinating　vagrant　personalities；　to　be

entertained　and　charmed　and　suffered　to　be　at　peace；　and　allowed　to

create。　　There　is　this　to　be　said　in　favour　of　the　despot；　that　he；

being　an　individual；　may　have　culture；　while　the　mob；　being　a

monster；　has　none。　　One　who　is　an　Emperor　and　King　may　stoop　down

to　pick　up　a　brush　for　a　painter；　but　when　the　democracy　stoops

down　it　is　merely　to　throw　mud。　　And　yet　the　democracy　have　not　so

far　to　stoop　as　the　emperor。　　In　fact；　when　they　want　to　throw　mud

they　have　not　to　stoop　at　all。　　But　there　is　no　necessity　to

separate　the　monarch　from　the　mob；　all　authority　is　equally　bad。



There　are　three　kinds　of　despots。　　There　is　the　despot　who

tyrannises　over　the　body。　　There　is　the　despot　who　tyrannises　over

the　soul。　　There　is　the　despot　who　tyrannises　over　the　soul　and

body　alike。　　The　first　is　called　the　Prince。　　The　second　is　called

the　Pope。　　The　third　is　called　the　People。　　The　Prince　may　be

cultivated。　　Many　Princes　have　been。　　Yet　in　the　Prince　there　is

danger。　　One　thinks　of　Dante　at　the　bitter　feast　in　Verona；　of

Tasso　in　Ferrara's　madman's　cell。　　It　is　better　for　the　artist　not

to　live　with　Princes。　　The　Pope　may　be　cultivated。　　Many　Popes　have

been；　the　bad　Popes　have　been。　　The　bad　Popes　loved　Beauty；　almost

as　passionately；　nay；　with　as　much　passion　as　the　good　Popes　hated

Thought。　　To　the　wickedness　of　the　Papacy　humanity　owes　much。　　The

goodness　of　the　Papacy　owes　a　terrible　debt　to　humanity。　　Yet；

though　the　Vatican　has　kept　the　rhetoric　of　its　thunders；　and　lost

the　rod　of　its　lightning；　it　is　better　for　the　artist　not　to　live

with　Popes。　　It　was　a　Pope　who　said　of　Cellini　to　a　conclave　of

Cardinals　that　common　laws　and　common　authority　were　not　made　for

men　such　as　he；　but　it　was　a　Pope　who　thrust　Cellini　into　prison；

and　kept　him　there　till　he　sickened　with　rage；　and　created　unreal

visions　for　himself；　and　saw　the　gilded　sun　enter　his　room；　and

grew　so　enamoured　of　it　that　he　sought　to　escape；　and　crept　out

from　tower　to　tower；　and　falling　through　dizzy　air　at　dawn；　maimed

himself；　and　was　by　a　vine…dresser　covered　with　vine　leaves；　and

carried　in　a　cart　to　one　who；　loving　beautiful　things；　had　care　of

him。　　There　is　danger　in　Popes。　　And　as　for　the　People；　what　of

them　and　their　authority？　　Perhaps　of　them　and　their　authority　one

has　spoken　enough。　　Their　authority　is　a　thing　blind；　deaf；

hideous；　grotesque；　tragic；　amusing；　serious；　and　obscene。　　It　is

impossible　for　the　artist　to　live　with　the　People。　　All　despots

bribe。　　The　people　bribe　and　brutalise。　　Who　told　them　to　exercise

authority？　　They　were　made　to　live；　to　listen；　and　to　love。

Someone　has　done　them　a　great　wrong。　　They　have　marred　themselves

by　imitation　of　their　inferiors。　　They　have　taken　the　sceptre　of

the　Prince。　　How　should　they　use　it？　　They　have　taken　the　triple

tiara　of　the　Pope。　　How　should　they　carry　its　burden？　　They　are　as

a　clown　whose　heart　is　broken。　　They　are　as　a　priest　whose　soul　is

not　yet　born。　　Let　all　who　love　Beauty　pity　them。　　Though　they

themselves　love　not　Beauty；　yet　let　them　pity　themselves。　　Who

taught　them　the　trick　of　tyranny？



There　are　many　other　things　that　one　might　point　out。　　One　might

point　out　how　the　Renaissance　was　great；　because　it　sought　to　solve

no　social　problem；　and　busied　itself　not　about　such　things；　but

suffered　the　individual　to　develop　freely；　beautifully；　and

naturally；　and　so　had　great　and　individual　artists；　and　great　and

individual　men。　　One　might　point　out　how　Louis　XIV。；　by　creating

the　modern　state；　destroyed　the　individualism　of　the　artist；　and

made　things　monstrous　in　their　monotony　of　repetition；　and

contemptible　in　their　conformity　to　rule；　and　destroyed　throughout

all　France　all　those　fine　freedoms　of　expression　that　had　made

tradition　new　in　beauty；　and　new　modes　one　with　antique　form。　　But

the　past　is　of　no　importance。　　The　present　is　of　no　importance。　　It

is　with　the　future　that　we　have　to　deal。　　For　the　past　is　what　man

should　not　have　been。　　The　present　is　what　man　ought　not　to　be。

The　future　is　what　artists　are。



It　will；　of　course；　be　said　that　such　a　scheme　as　is　set　forth　here

is　quite　unpractical；　and　goes　against　human　nature。　　This　is

perfectly　true。　　It　is　unpractical；　and　it　goes　against　human

nature。　　This　is　why　it　is　worth　carrying　out；　and　that　is　why　one

proposes　it。　　For　what　is　a　practical　scheme？　　A　practical　scheme

is　either　a　scheme　that　is　already　in　existence；　or　a　scheme　that

could　be　carried　out　under　existing　conditions。　　But　it　is　exactly

the　existing　conditions　that　one　objects　to；　and　any　scheme　that

could　accept　these　conditions　is　wrong　and　foolish。　　The　conditions

will　be　done　away　with；　and　human　nature　will　change。　　The　only

thing　that　one　really　knows　about　human　nature　is　that　it　changes。

Change　is　the　one　quality　we　can　predicate　of　it。　　The　systems　that

fail　are　those　that　rely　on　the　permanency　of　human　nature；　and　not

on　its　growth　and　development。　　The　error　of　Louis　XIV。　was　that　he

thought　human　nature　would　always　be　the　same。　　The　result　of　his

error　was　the　French　Revolution。　　It　was　an　admirable　result。　　All

the　results　of　the　mistakes　of　governments　are　quite　admirable。



It　is　to　be　noted　also　that　Individualism　does　not　come　to　man　with

any　sickly　cant　about　duty；　which　merely　means　doing　what　other

people　want　because　they　want　it；　or　any　hideous　cant　about　self…

sacrifice；　which　is　merely　a　survival　of　savag